Friedrich-4B

No problem; the main thing I had to do was scale the file down from 92 MB; it was originally downloaded from Avialogs. Gotta agree, the P-47M was only made in small numbers, so its probably a little too specialised to portray in DCS. A couple of other things to note: 1) The drop tank/bomb pylons weren't initially fitted and, once fitted in the field, they were sometimes taken off 2)The fin fillet was also fitted in the feild; eg: HV-J "Lorene" of Lt Russell S Kyler, 61st FS: without wing pylons but with fin fillet: with pylons and drop tanks, but without fin fillet: Still, the M did have some interesting colour schemes: All images from 8th Air Force Fighter Groups "Little Friends" website. More importantly, attached is a NACA report on the P-47D-30.

Here is a NACA report on the cooling requirements of the V-1650-7; it gives good details of the engine operating temperatures, coolant flow etc. New additions: Packard V-1650-3 & -7 servicing bulletins, plus Technical Orders relating to the tail surfaces and controls:

Attached is the Pilot's Instruction Manual for the P-47D-25 though -35, dated 25 January 1945:

Did NACA actually ever test properly instrumented aircraft under combat conditions over Europe or the Pacific? I don't seem to recall NACA compiling a test report on this Grumman TBM to establish the quantifiable flight parameters of losing 1/3rd of the wing... Did NACA ever fly battle-damaged aircraft, like this P-47 or P-51, to test their flight parameters? If they did, it would great to see the reports. All the testing in the world wouldn't necessarily show how aircraft would behave after receiving serious combat damage with a (probably) badly scared pilot having to fly it across several hundred miles of Pacific Ocean or hostile Europe. More often than not, the pilot had to learn a whole new set of flight parameters, all without NACA's help. More often than not, the pilot's anecdotes, inaccurate analogue instrument readings, intangibles and all, would have been highly valuable to others experiencing similar damage. Of course, there will always be great value in flying properly instrumented test aircraft under carefully monitored conditions in the hands of experienced test pilots, because that establishes how well, or badly the aircraft flies normally.

There's nothing wrong with using anecdotes of how a combat aircraft performs in the hands of someone who may well be stressed, whose instruments might not be 100% accurate and who might be highly experienced, or have very limited experience at flying that aircraft in combat. After all,combat is what the fighter was designed for in the first place; the fighter pilot is the end consumer and is the only person who has a handle on how a fighter (or bomber or reconnaissance aircraft) performs under the stress of wartime and combat conditions. Combat may well turn up problems that are not obvious during test flights; eg: did NAA know that the .50 cals of the B/C series would fail during combat before the aircraft entered service? The fabric covered ailerons of the early Spitfires weren't redesigned to have metal skins until anecdotes from fighter pilots showed how useless the fabric covering was during high speed combat. How many 190 test pilots realised that under the stress of combat at low altitude the pilot may well forget to retrim the tailplane while pulling out of a dive? Sure, the combat pilot won't have the cool analytical approach that seems to be required on internet forums, but combat is surely the ultimate test of a combat aircraft? Roll on the anecdotes, as well as the test reports - they both have a place in assessing aircraft.

A bomber pilot. :pilotfly:

Would you believe the artist got the code letters and serial number wrong?? :huh: And on this one the artist shows six stub exhausts each side on a Spitfire I or VA...!! :no_sad:

Nope; FE-121 was Wnr. 401392 Black 5 of 6./JG 26 which surrendered at Neubiberg. Although the engine was called a Jumo 213E in the report, this was clearly an error and shouldn't be taken to mean FE-121 was flown with a 213-E. No D-12s were captured by the Allies post-war. The D-13/R11 was Wnr. 836017, Yellow 10 - + - flown by Oblt Franz Götz, Geschwader Kommodore of JG 26, that was initially restored using the D-9 wing from Wnr. 601088 ex <1+~ . Both Ds still exist and the wings were swapped in 2004.

Glad I could be of some help. Now that that's sorted, there's some pesky 109s & 190s that need lottsa .50 cal holes to help ventilate the airframe..:pilotfly:

Without knowing the procedures you follow it's hard to know why you're experiencing overheating. Just looking at the DCS manual, everything is in accordance with WW2 vintage Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions for P-51Ds, so if you follow the instructions, there shouldn't be any problems with overheating. Oil dilution shouldn't have to be used under normal circumstances. First thing to do is check whether you aren't missing out a step or two, either in your pre-start checks for the engine or during your start and take-off procedures Eg: under Preflight Check both DCS and the WW2 manual say Oil and coolant radiator air control switches set to AUTOMATIC or words to similar effect Start Up: (immediately after starting the engine) Check that oil pressure reaches at least 50 psi within 30 seconds (NB: this ensures that the oil is circulating properly) Idle at about 1200-1300 RPM until the oil temperature reaches 40°C and the oil pressure is steady. Also, here are the genuine Flight Operating Instructions; Other members might have some ideas as well. :book:

What sort of temperatures are you getting? Under what flight conditions? Have you set your radiator & oil flaps to Automatic? Normal temperatures should be around 100-110° (maximum = 120°) for coolant; 70-80° (maximum 105°) for oil; oil pressure = 70-80 psi.

Attached is a wartime Technical Order 01-60J-28 on the P-51D/K's flight restrictions. I have other Mustang T.Os I'll dig out...

A website that should help with preliminary investigations; perhaps contacting the website owner would be useful? http://www.nonstopsystems.com/feedback/feedback.html : http://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/hellschreiber-modes-other-hell.htm#other-beams http://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/hellschreiber-modes-other-hell-statns.htm http://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/hellschreiber-modes-other-hell.htm

Here are the material specs for such things as the flaps' brackets/hinges and control rods etc. Presumably ED has to take such information as this into account when developing their models.

Be sure to be more careful and read what was actually written before making snide, condescending little comments with a little smiley at the end: Kapeesh? :smilewink:

It's also possible to join Avialogs for about $15 US: http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/northamericanaviation/p-51mustang/Page-6.html

Here are the production figures for 109s built in 1944-45 at MTT Regensburg; G-6s built in that factory complex way outnumbered all other subtypes built there until December 1944: Other factories building the G-6 supplemented them and later replaced them with G-14s.

Thanks for these Milo, very interesting.

Not trying to argue; just providing documentation and information based on that documentation. If other people want to waste their time quibbling over one missing word, that's their problem.

:doh: That's right! A modified MK 103 was planned for the K-8, a reconnaissance variant that apparently didn't leave the drawing boards, and a K-10 that, according to JaPo, wasn't even tested: So, sure Galland was right in that a modified MK 103 variant was planned for 109Ks, but there is no evidence an unmodified MK 103 could be fitted to a K-4, nor is there any evidence such a combination ever existed, let alone reached operational service.

Here...read it in context. In context: the flaps, landing gear and fairing door system is pressurized to 1050 lbs in² ± 50. To test the system a test stand delivering 4 gpm @ 1300 lbs in² is recommended: The hydraulic landing gear operating struts could be tested @ 2000 lbs in² for five minutes; port C of the unloading/relief valve could also be tested @ 2000 lbs in²(see page 268 para 4: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2298330&postcount=73) I'm not wasting any more time on this: the P-51D hydraulic schematics, systems operation and analysis & repair procedures are all properly documented and available for all to read.

Just for interest, this is from a 1954 Flight Handbook on the F-51D:

There was a restrictor valve governing the flap's hydraulic system, so the pilot could not force the flaps to go down or retract faster than they were designed to. (see pages 283 - 285 of the pdf document) The hydraulic system for the flaps and undercarriage operated at 1,050 lbs in² +/- 50 lbs. According to the pilot's manuals the flaps took 10-11 seconds to move through 50 degrees; the speed restrictions ranged from 400 mph IAS for 10º to 165 mph IAS for the full 50º. No we don't; the pump doesn't have to try equalising anything because that's what the unloading/relief valve is for. What we have is a pump circulating 2.5 gpm of fluid through the system - the only reason the reservoir would drain is if there was a major leak. As it is, the E & M manual specified a flow rate through the unloading/relief valve of 3.5 gpm@ 1,000 lbs in². The relief valve operated when the pressure went over 1,100 - 1,250lbs in²

I could be wrong, but from what I have read the "Y Verfahren" was initially fitted to the 109s or 190s of formation leaders to allow ground control to keep track of the formation.

Very true; as noted in the After Flight Inspections, the ground crew kept a very close eye on when and for how long the engine used WEP. The problem with cumulative damage is that it assumes a negligent ground crew and poor maintenance, something that happened very occasionally in real life. The only cumulative damage worth modelling is that which occurs if the pilot abuses the engine in flight, or combat damage.